Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sora Update #1

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 191 posts

Re: Sora Update #1

#131

Post by ricardobeat »

estearum wrote: post #127
mlrtime wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree, it is content. The Japanese anime (referenced) is specifically made to be marketed and sold.

Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold. Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.

Most independent artists will disagree with this statement. They do it for passion, to communicate, to tell stories, to fulfill their own urges. Some works incidentally hit a sweet spot and become commercial successes, but that's not their purpose. On the other hand, the 'art' you see being marketed around you is made specifically to be marketed and sold, with little personal connection to the artist, and often against their own preferences. That's "content".

Re: Sora Update #1

#132

Post by layer8 »

rossant wrote: post #107
simianparrot wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No human writes like this. If he actually did it’s worrying.

Would you mind explaining? As a non native English speaker I may have missed some nuance.

The word “content” is often perceived as devaluing creative work: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/27/movies/emma-thompson-writ...

Paradoxically, it signals indifference or disregard about the actual contents of a work.

Re: Sora Update #1

#133

Post by iterance »

mallowdram wrote: post #121
reorder9695 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but the current system is totally idiotic. Why not have a fixed timeframe i.e. 30-50 years to make money? Life of the author + x years is stupid not only because it's way too long, it keeps going until way after the creator is no longer benefitting, and it can cause issues with works where you don't know who the author is so you can't cleanly say it's old enough not to have copyright. I'm not sure for most (speci…

The shareholder class would demand rapid fire exploitation of © the moment it expired and the resulting media would be a soup of mediocrity. The idea is to recognize the highly creative have unique imaginations that invent paradigms that propel culture. Excluding that for 70+ years generates that. Had Lucas gained the rights to Flash Gordon (DeLaurentiis beat him to it) he'd never been forced to create the SW univers…

This does not demonstrate a sound understanding of how the public domain works, why copyright lengths have been extended so ferociously over the last century (it's shareholders who want this), nor the impact it has both on creative process and public conversation.

This is a highly complex question about how legal systems, companies, and individual creatives come in conflict, and cannot be summarized as a positive creative constraint / means to celebrate their works.

Re: Sora Update #1

#134

Post by mallowdram »

iterance wrote: post #133
mallowdram wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shareholder class would demand rapid fire exploitation of © the moment it expired and the resulting media would be a soup of mediocrity. The idea is to recognize the highly creative have unique imaginations that invent paradigms that propel culture. Excluding that for 70+ years generates that. Had Lucas gained the rights to Flash Gordon (DeLaurentiis beat him to it) he'd never been forced to create the SW univers…

This does not demonstrate a sound understanding of how the public domain works, why copyright lengths have been extended so ferociously over the last century (it's shareholders who want this), nor the impact it has both on creative process and public conversation. This is a highly complex question about how legal systems, companies, and individual creatives come in conflict, and cannot be summarized as a positive cre…

I develop copyright material from the letter and the images that I've both sold to studios and own myself. Copyright lengths are there to prevent the shareholder class from rapid exploitation. Once copyright declines to years not decades, shareholders will demand that be exploited rather than new ideas. The public conversation is rather irrelevant as the layperson doesn't have a window into the massive risk, long-term development required to invent new things, that's how copyright is not a referendum, it's a specialized discourse. Yes the idea of long-term copyright developed under work-for-hire or individual ownership can be easily summarized. License, sample, or steal. Those are the windows.

Re: Sora Update #1

#135

Post by pxoe »

kg wrote: post #4

The detail that rightsholders seem to be demanding a revenue share is interesting. That sounds administratively and technologically very complex to implement and probably also just plain expensive to implement.

This "but it's too hard to implement" excuse never made sense to me. So it's doable to make a system like this, to have smart people working on it, hire and poach other smart people, to have payments systems, tracking systems, personal data collection, request filtering and content awareness, all that jazz, but somehow all of that grinds to a halt the moment a question like this arises? and it's been a problem for years, yet some of the smartest people are just unable to approach it, let alone solve it? Does it not seem idiotic to see them serve 'most advanced' products over and over, and then pretend like this question is "too complex" for them to solve? Shouldn't they be smart enough to rise up to that level of "complexity" anyway?

Seems more like selective, intentional ignoring of the problem to me. It's just because if they start to pay up, everyone will want to get paid, and paying other people is something that companies like this systematically try to avoid as much as possible.

Re: Sora Update #1

#136

Post by rglover »

melvinmelih wrote: post #94
solid_fuel wrote: post #43

I don't understand some parts of this, the writing doesn't seem to flow logically from one thought to another. > Second, we are going to have to somehow make money for video generation. People are generating much more than we expected per user, and a lot of videos are being generated for very small audiences. > We are going to try sharing some of this revenue with rightsholders who want their characters generated by…

> After all, it's not like they could possibly identify every single living person and tie them to their likeness. Wasn’t he literally scanning eye balls a couple years ago?

"Just look into the orb, bro."

Re: Sora Update #1

#137

Post by slacktivism123 »

surrTurr wrote: post #92

> launch new sora update > enable generating ghibli content since users are ADDICTED to that style > willingly ignore the fact that the people who own this content don't want this > wait a few days > "ooooh we're so sorry for letting these users generate copyrighted content" > disables it via some dumb ahh prompt detection algorithm > dumb down the model and features even more > add expensive pricing > wait a few mon…

>dumb ahh prompt detection algorithm

Don't worry, you can write "dumb ass" here without needing to use algospeak. This isn't Instagram or TikTok and you won't be unpersoned by a "trust and safety" team for doing so.

P.S. No need for a space after your meme arrows :-)

Re: Sora Update #1

#138

Post by dwohnitmok »

rafram wrote: post #39
dwohnitmok wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With some back of the napkin math, I am pretty sure you're off by at least two orders of magnitude, conceivably 4. I think 2 cents per video is an upper limit. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45434298 Generally speaking, API costs that the consumer sees are way higher than compute costs that the provider pays. EDIT: Upper limit on pure on-going compute cost. If you factor in chip capital costs as another comment…

You also aren’t including amortized training costs, which are immense (and likely ongoing as they continue to tweak the model).

I suspect amortized training costs are only a relatively small fraction of the amortized hardware costs (i.e. counting amortized hardware costs already accounts for the large fraction of the cost of training and pulling out training as a completely separate category double counts a lot of the cost).

Re: Sora Update #1

#139

Post by spongebobstoes »

surrTurr wrote: post #92

> launch new sora update > enable generating ghibli content since users are ADDICTED to that style > willingly ignore the fact that the people who own this content don't want this > wait a few days > "ooooh we're so sorry for letting these users generate copyrighted content" > disables it via some dumb ahh prompt detection algorithm > dumb down the model and features even more > add expensive pricing > wait a few mon…

copyright is such a poorly designed tax on our society and culture. innovations like Sora should be possible, but faces huge headwinds because... Disney wants even more money?

the blind greed of copyright companies disgusts me

Re: Sora Update #1

#140

Post by richardfulop »

ricardobeat wrote: post #131
estearum wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold. Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.

Most independent artists will disagree with this statement. They do it for passion, to communicate, to tell stories, to fulfill their own urges. Some works incidentally hit a sweet spot and become commercial successes, but that's not their purpose. On the other hand, the 'art' you see being marketed around you is made specifically to be marketed and sold, with little personal connection to the artist, and often again…

Art is not an objective definition, it is the subjective experience of the observer. Content is a format.
Post reply on HN